But what can you do with widths? Ben Blom’s system XXXNar XXNar XNar is good for really big families. But what if there are like five widths? Then you’ll get only one X, meaning XNar and Nar, not so good. I like Narrow and Wide (shorter than Extended and Condenced), but how to add one more step on each side, except for Extra Narrow and Extra Wide? Are there any other words for that? Perhaps words that are unusual for font design, like Oversized or something like that?

A bit more specific question within the topic:At the moment I’m working on a geometric typeface, its normal width with circlular O is quite wide. Would it be ok to use the word Text for a slightly condenced width? Like this: Narrow – Text – Normal – Wide – [Extra Wide]?

Comments

i agree with your commends on condensed and compressedtoo long, eating up alot of menu space and on first glance not looking too distinct

wide and narrow do not have that problem to the same extend.

---

your weight names seem to be a no brainer,agree on what u have there.

---

I recently did a custom job where I supplied lots of widths to test in layout to figure out which are the best. At the time I didnt think too much about it and came up with a simple numbering to address the widths.

While “Medium” is pretty widely agreed to be heavier than “Regular,” there is no such consistent difference betwixt “Book” and “Regular” as to which is heavier—it seems pretty random among existing families that have both. Because of this, the words do not differentiate clearly for users, and I would only use both in a single family as a last resort.

I recently did a custom job where I supplied lots of widths to test in layout to figure out which are the best. At the time I didnt think too much about it and came up with a simple numbering to address the widths.

I like this simple system (and I saw it’s being used somewhere). But I think Normal width should be the ground floor in this case, shouldn’t it? So perhaps it might be something like:Regular -2, Regular -1, Regular (0), Regular 1, Regular 2.Does it look functional or confusing?

While “Medium” is pretty widely agreed to be heavier than “Regular,” there is no such consistent difference betwixt “Book” and “Regular” as to which is heavier—it seems pretty random among existing families that have both. Because of this, the words do not differentiate clearly for users, and I would only use both in a single family as a last resort.

True! Are there any reasons to use words like Roman or Book instead of Regular?

In terms of width, for example, an ‘n’ that is condensed by 50% (of what — advance width? glyph width? counter width?) and then corrected to look acceptable will end up a different percentage than an ‘m’ that is treated similarly and made to relate consistently.

In terms of width, for example, an ‘n’ that is condensed by 50% (of what — advance width? glyph width? counter width?) and then corrected to look acceptable will end up a different percentage than an ‘m’ that is treated similarly and made to relate consistently.

Good point! I didn’t think about it from this point of view. I meant it without direct mathematical relationship between the number and the width of letters (yes, it’s for width designation).

It is then in effect just another system of arbitrary labels... only done up in a way that makes it *look* like those numbers are some kind of percentage of something. So I am not excited about it for that reason, it feels a little misleading.

As dislike goes, this is pretty mild, but why create a system that is unnecessarily confusing?

I think the problem here is simply that there are only a small handful of words in English that have been used to designate type widths, and other English terms tied to width would likely be interpreted as describing weight rather than width (e.g. skinny, anorexic, bloated, distended, broad, ethereal, dilated, etc.).

It is then in effect just another system of arbitrary labels... only done up in a way that makes it *look* like those numbers are some kind of percentage of something. So I am not excited about it for that reason, it feels a little misleading.

As dislike goes, this is pretty mild, but why create a system that is unnecessarily confusing?

True!

So most likely I’m going to use “Semi / Extra + Narrow / Wide” system, which is an ok compromise for me (and users).